LAWS(ORI)-2004-7-11

SABITA PRAHARAJ Vs. GITARANI PRAHARAJ

Decided On July 16, 2004
SABITA PRAHARAJ Appellant
V/S
GITARANI PRAHARAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is accused No. 4 in ICC Case No. 64 of 2003 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Jaleswar has challenged the order dated 23-4-2004 passed by the learned Magistrate in the aforesaid complaint case. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for staying the further proceedings of the said complaint case.

(2.) The fact of the case, in short, is that opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint case bearing ICC Case No. 64 of 2003 in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Jaleswar arraigning the petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 6 as accused persons. After enquiry, the learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506/354, I.P.C. The petitioner-accused No. 4 filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the further proceedings of the complaint case on the ground that investigation is pending before the police authorities for the self-same incident under the direction of the National Human Rights Commission. After hearing the parties on the said petition, the learned J.M.F.C. by the impugned order dated 23-4-2004 rejected the prayer holding that in absence of registration of any G. R. Case by the police, mere calling for a report by the National Human Rights Commission is not well enough to attract the provisions of Section 210 of the Cr. P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

(3.) The-submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in essence, is that, since the case has been registered by the Human Rights Commission and the Commission have called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Balasore on the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the occurrence dated 4-5-2003 and the police authorities are to submit a report after due enquiry, it can be legally presumed that the investigation by the police into the same matter is pending. He relies on Sections 14 and 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.